It really depends on what you mean, since 'love' is very broad; no response comparing this broad idea to the specifics of metta and karuna is yet possible, because it would require taking my ideas of love for the comparison, which may not be what you had in mind at all.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

Uilium wrote:What is the difference between love without attatchment and loving-kindness(or compassion)?

i really dislike the term "loving-kindness". try to be lovingly kind to person that treats you like garbage. instead, i've found it easier to have goodwill for them - disliking them but wishing them all the best, ie. that they see the causes for true happiness and that they act upon them.

again, "love without attachment" sounds ridiculous to me. that would require the love to be unconditional, and i think we know what the Unconditioned is; to say the Buddha "loved" everyone would be a misunderstanding but i think it's closer to the mark that he had goodwill toward all beings, ie. that they see the causes for true happiness and that they act upon them.

Uilium wrote:What is the difference between love without attatchment and loving-kindness(or compassion)?

i really dislike the term "loving-kindness". try to be lovingly kind to person that treats you like garbage. instead, i've found it easier to have goodwill for them - disliking them but wishing them all the best, ie. that they see the causes for true happiness and that they act upon them.

again, "love without attachment" sounds ridiculous to me. that would require the love to be unconditional, and i think we know what the Unconditioned is; to say the Buddha "loved" everyone would be a misunderstanding but i think it's closer to the mark that he had goodwill toward all beings, ie. that they see the causes for true happiness and that they act upon them.

Prasadachitta wrote:Words tend to have spheres of influence in what they indicate. It helps to have context. In my opinion goodwill does not express as much caring as loving kindness. As far as I know traditionally metta does have the potential to shade into something like affection or sticky attachment so it can be "linked to attachment" as well. I like "universal loving kindness" to express the perfection of metta as one of the sublime abidings. That way attachment to an individual is excluded.

I lean more towards the goodwill translation than loving kindness but I combine the thought of goodwill with the idea of boundless friendliness which is how John Peacock translated metta in one of his dhamma talks that I find useful. Peacock also compared the term mitta, as in kalayanamitta or admirable friend in the holy life, with metta and showed their relation which is one of the reasons why boundless friendliness makes sense. Friendliness also conveys some of the aspects of loving kindness that the term goodwill lacks but without evoking the overzealous qualities that the term loving kindness carries. So to sum up, I think of metta as goodwill and boundless friendliness towards all living beings and with this understanding there isn't any confusion between what I consider love and what I consider metta although obviously they have overlapping qualities.

"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."

I like the term "friendliness" for metta, though I sometimes prefer the strength of the term "camaraderie".

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

daverupa wrote:I like the term "friendliness" for metta, though I sometimes prefer the strength of the term "camaraderie".

Hmm, good one. I'll add that to my metta arsenal. Camaraderie carries that connotation that "we're all in it together" and that perception is useful when dealing with difficult people, or anyone for that matter.

"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."

Uilium wrote:What is the difference between love without attatchment and loving-kindness(or compassion)?

i really dislike the term "loving-kindness". try to be lovingly kind to person that treats you like garbage. instead, i've found it easier to have goodwill for them - disliking them but wishing them all the best, ie. that they see the causes for true happiness and that they act upon them.

again, "love without attachment" sounds ridiculous to me. that would require the love to be unconditional, and i think we know what the Unconditioned is; to say the Buddha "loved" everyone would be a misunderstanding but i think it's closer to the mark that he had goodwill toward all beings, ie. that they see the causes for true happiness and that they act upon them.

Ok, people usually leave they're parent's home and become less attatched or never were that attatched but the love is still there, what about that? Yeah, it looks so much like we can't seperate love from attatchment so I reflect on love and attatchment. Were I don't understand I have instead great faith and confidence because of what I already understand supports what IS do not understand yet...and I would certainly not try to see it my own view.